May 16, 2012

The men, both Orthodox Jews from Israel,... say that after climbing into their beds the first night, they were awakened at 5 a.m. by crew members who made them get dressed “in prison garments issued by Royal Caribbean.”

Without explanation, the staffers paraded [Eviator] Mor and [David] Amsalem “through public areas of the ship to a lock-up facility,” court papers state.

Several hours later, they were told they had been accused of raping an “unidentified woman” who later recanted her allegation and who was examined by a doctor who determined she hadn’t been sexually assaulted.

“Notwithstanding the woman’s recantation and the doctor’s conclusion . . . Royal Caribbean’s arresting agents refused to release plaintiffs or to modify the conditions of their imprisonment,” according to the lawsuit.

Yes, it's a lawsuit. They're only asking for $100 million.

This is one reason I would avoid cruise ships. It's a little city out there. What is the government in that little city? You take it for granted, but you know there will be crime. Rape and accusations of rape must happen all the time. The cruise ship company obviously has its lawyers and its policies and must want to handle these things well enough that news like this never comes out, but obviously, there will be some screwups. I assume Royal Caribbean offered these men a generous settlement, but they want more. The publicity is awful. And yet, people will still pay money to ride those floating cities.

In the case of this, I don't see why they didn't just put some men outside the door to their room until they at least confirmed a sexual assault had happened. They could have said that they were investigation allegations against the men if they asked; it may have still been bad publicity ("We were stuck in our room while they investigated if we raped someone!") But... that's not nearly as bad as this.

It won't go to trial and it won't burden the courts much. Think of it as an employment initiative for lawyers. The Cruise line is in the wrong and sooner or later they'll settle for more than is being offered now.

I don't like the idea of cruise ships because it seems too confined, but this is a good thing to add to the list. Although I'm not sure the government in Mexico, the Carribean, or any of the other sunny places you might go in lieu of a cruise is going to necessarily be better.

Surprise surprise tourists who travel these top heavy monstrosities ... your civil rights are checked at the gang plank when you board. Law of the Sea and all that. With any luck you won't be in Turkish or Somalian, or other lovely locale, waters then you are falsely accused or you just might have an unscheduled stop & stay in the local jail to boot.

Main reason to not travel on these things, from a marine engineering stand point, is that they are not designed for much stormy weather. Didn't a Carnival subsidiary roll one over recently due to sailing it in to some rocks? After intentionally sailing off course for poops & giggles?

You think the "Captains" of these floating top heavy hotels are the cream of the crop, that the best of Navy ship masters quit the navy to join Carnival?

The Professor's logic is sound, Tank. You place a lot of trust in both the ship's crew and in your fellow passengers once you get on board.

It seems that the types of crews and passengers that populate the big huge ones are not worthy of that kind of trust. But I know several people who have gone on high-end cruises on much smaller ships and enjoyed them very much. That's probably largely because the boats' crews are more professional, the passengers are more sober, and the food is better.

I've been on three cruises and never been disappointed. I was in a large family group, so my interaction with other passengers was limited. What was the relationship of the accuser to her victims before the allegation?

"Think about how many people are on cruise ships every year. A little perspective, maybe? I've only been on one, but it was flawless, and hassle free."

But how are they suppressing the hassles, and what would the experience become if you were perceived as the hassle that needed to be hidden from all the other passengers whose perception of hassle-freedom was so important to the ongoing enterprise of cruise shipping.

Never been on a cruise, but I was at a conference in New Orleans last winter, and it was fascinating to watch the cruise ships get loaded with foodstuffs, etc. Waaay too much Bud Light was put on board, IMO.

The odds of being run over crossing the street are probably hundreds of times greater than suffering any substantial problem on a cruise ship.

There are probably dozens of countries where you are in more danger from exposure to the authorities there than on a cruise ship. At least on the ship they are motivated to minimize bad publicity and legal actions.

I'd still rather be locked up by Royal Caribbean than by the government of most Caribbean islands. Once the tow men have their fat settlements in bank, they ought to sue the snot out of the false accuser, just to teach her and others a lesson. That sort of thing should not be, and should not be seen to be, consequence free.

Our complaint: you don't get to spend enough time at each stop to get a real feel for the place.

This. There was a stop in Venezuela (Caracas) that required people wanting to see the city to take a $40 taxi 30 minutes away from the boat. And then there wasn't much at all in the way of "tourism". It was like being dropped into a total immersion Spanish class.

On that same trip, though, we spent an entire day at Grenada and another at St Thomas. Both were awesome and I would much rather pondhop down and spend a week on an island than cruise again.

There are quite a lot of crimes and disappearances on cruise ships. No "man overboard" at three in the morning. No audible splash. Bye bye inconvenient person.

These big monsters are popular for the booze and food. Passengers aren't much interested in the countries where the ships dock (being generally afraid of foreigners) so the host countries have created little fake neighborhoods right there by the gangplanks. Some lines go even further and buy little islands where they can create entire fake villages that pose no local problems or authenticity for those who dare to disembark.

If David Foster Wallace's life was such a cruise I can see why he disembarked. Also, he probably had to read what he typed.

Hey, we've done that cruise; in fact, The Blonde and I took her favorite nephews on it about 8 years.

The guests are treated wonderfully on a cruise. We only sail Royal Caribbean and have never had a problem with them.

Ann Althouse said...

The publicity is awful. And yet, people will still pay money to ride those floating cities.

Oh, come on, Ann. You're being paranoid - this case is an aberration. But, OK, once the ship leaves American waters, it's the laws of the high seas and you don't have your Constitutional rights - but you can see those taken from you in an American court.

Yes, one day on an island doesn't give you enough time to really get to know the place. OTOH, a cruise gives you a chance to see parts of it and get an idea of whether you'd enjoy spending longer there in the future, rather than relying on a website to check the place out.

There are some wonderful islands in the Caribbean that I'd love to spend a few weeks on. Others, not so much. But at least I know which ones from first-hand experience.

There are cruise lines, and ships within each line, and itineraries, for just about everyone's taste. I wouldn't go on one of RCI's behemoths, or on a Carnival party itinerary over spring break (although the running of the drunks trying to make it back to the ship at Cozumel is supposed to be entertaining), but I love Cunard and Holland America and wouldn't hesitate to sail with them again.

For me there is absolutely nothing so relaxing as sitting on a wooden deck chair on the promenade deck and watching the ocean.

I've never come to the attention of the security types, and I don't know the particulars of this case...only the two accused's side of the story...but OTOH as we've seen here in Madison (and other cities too), sometimes the PD's in major American cities aren't so trustworthy either....

I wonder how many of you that POO POO cruising have ever gone on one?Cruising is wonderful, but it greatly depends on the cruise line. Last year we spent 12 days from Miami to LA through the Panama Canal and it was AWESOME!!!

Some lines go even further and buy little islands where they can create entire fake villages that pose no local problems or authenticity for those who dare to disembark.

Disney's Castaway Cay is like this, but it's still pretty nice.

All of the complaints are indeed true, but I still find some aspects of cruising enjoyable.

The biggest draw is that you don't have to worry about transportation (the boat takes you to different places ... you just go to sleep!) about food (eat here, there, anywhere) or entertainment (there's choices on the boat and off). They basically handle all of the coordination and logistics.

Their suit is going to be heard under admiralty law, not American common law. Admiralty law is completely divorced from anything the average American (or any other country, for that matter) lawyer is familiar with. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the ship's captain was acting perfectly within his powers to place these two in the ship's brig. I'mm pretty sure (based on a law school course I took on a whim almost 40 years ago) that damages are limitd to the value of the ship, so lots of luck recoverng any where near $100 million.

People ... so Ann said she's not put off by cruise ships per se. Good for her for being brave. Good for the rest of you who like cruise ships.

Now look at photos of the Costa Concordia. Notice she's rolling over, half way in fact, saved from total capsize by being near shore line rocks. Notice also that fully half of her lifeboats are unusable, unemployable. Had she been in open water at the end she's be upside down and a whole lot more dead folks. She only made it to the island rocks by some adroit maneuvering by someone using the bow thrusters to execute a U-turn of sorts.

The fact is simple enough, if one of these giant floating hotels/casinos strikes something and/or takes on water, they ROLL OVER. Period.

I have some fair maritime experience on vessels designed to take rough water, even survive a strike. No amount of money could get me aboard one of these multi-storied top/lop sided "cruisers." They may not encounter trouble often, but when they do ... there's 3000+ lives at risk with little hope.

I had to be guilted into my first cruise by my mother who wanted company. I fell in love. Booked another cruise for a few weeks later on the same ship and the staff recognized me! Well, probably not, but it speaks well of the company that they flag previous cruisers for that little flattery.

Security cameras abound on cruise ships, btw.

Nothing better than spending the afternoon during the Inland Passage in an all glass forward lounge with wine, a good book, and one eye out for whales. But your mileage may vary.

Worst thing I could say about my cruises is that the cable didn't carry SEC football and does carry the international CNN feed.

A few years ago, I took my group of medical students to the coroner's office in LA to witness an autopsy. I do this every year as autopsies in hospitals are now rare where they used to be common.

The corpse to be autopsied was that of a British woman who had died on a cruise ship between Hawaii and Los Angeles. After she died, they put her body in a freezer until the ship made port.

It had been thawed out and we watched the autopsy. It was a real revelation for the students for the woman had died of a perforated appendix. It had been misdiagnosed by the ship's doctor and mistreated. You don't get to see that diagnosis at autopsy very often, especially with no surgery having been done.

Cruises are great! You see the high points without the hassle. (Unless you're accused of rape, of course.)

This lawsuit is bullshit. $100 million in your dreams, gentlemen. Why aren't they suing the woman who they say falsely accused them? They obviously had sex with her, it may have been consensual or it may not have been. There's no way to tell. That's not the cruise lines' fault; it's the fault of grown ass people who can't control themselves. Did she give consent? Were they too drunk to ask? Who knows? About any of these people, the men or the woman. What the men have shown, however, is that what is most important to them is teeing up the deep pocket for a nice raping.

The only way the cruise line can win is if there's a waiver which applies to this situation. Under these circumstances, if they don't lock up the accused then the accuser will claim drama trauma from having them loose in her vicinity. However, if they do lock up the accused then the accused will claim $100 million for false imprisonment.

It might have had something with the other passangers. Maybe Nancy Grace, Wendy Murphy, or Gloria Aldred were on board and were getting cabin fever. Or perhaps some Duke faculty? Maybe even Mike Nifong-he doesn't have much to do these days except cruise around!